The cartoon depicted Mohammed as a terrorist. Whether or not you want to call that hate speech, it is still deeply offensive to Muslims, the vast majority of which are peaceful, law abiding, non-violent consumers.
Relevance?
I don’t deny that the cartoons are offensive to some, but don’t see how that changes anything. Unless people have a legal right to ‘not be offended’, folks will just have to get on with their lives when they see or read something that offends them.
As for the Islamic prohibition against images of Moe, it does seem that there are some ‘exceptions’ to the rule. At the top of that page are several images of Moe from Islamic artists. (And for the love of all that is NSFW, don’t go looking at the other sections of that site if you have a weak constitution or are at work!)
None. I misread rjung’s comment.
What do legal rights have to do with anything? This is not about legal rights of Muslims, it’s about CNN’s right not show an offensive cartoon if they don’t want to.
I came in here to say what I see Diogenes has already said: CNN is a business. It is a small part of the enormous Time Warner group, the largest media company in the world. The business CNN is in just happens to be journalism. Does that clarify their choices at all?
If it was up to me, and here’s why it never will be, I would have put the cartoon on CNN’s Web site. Put it in a link with the standard disclaimers so nobody sees it if they don’t want to, but as a journalist, I think you have to run it. I think it’s just stupid of a news outlet to report on a controversy about something’s allegedly offensiveness while refusing, out of politeness, to inform their readers or viewers about what the offensive thing actually is, allowing the viewer to come to his or her own conclusions about the content. Otherwise, your ‘news’ is just someone else’s regurgitated outrage.
I do wish that CNN had said something other than “out of respect for Islam,” because that makes the decision seem like kowtowing. They could have expressed the same thing in a way that didn’t make it sound like Islam was an exception.
Of course, it may BE an exception, and I think that would be a real problem. Last July, the Mexican government reissued stamps of a Mexican comic book character named Memin Pinguin, (note: some may find these images offensive, and they do not represent the views or ideas of Marley, who does not own them). Some American blacks and civil rights groups thought the cartoon character was racist because the character looks like such a black stereotype. As I remember it, CNN.com’s story about the controversy did include an image of Memin. Unfortunately I can’t find that story on CNN.com. By way of contrast, MSNBC’s top story does not show the cartoons - in fact, they ask people to vote in a poll about whether the outrage is justified, sight unseen - but they sure did include images of Memin.
A link from the Druge Report shows the cartoons:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146
And that’s all they are folks, cartoons.
Marley23, if I were in charge of CNN, I would not show it, and I would state that I’m not showing it so that I do not further endanger CNN people in the region. We know how these fanatics will react and it is a difficult job to protect our people in the region as it is. And I would have my newsreaders loudly and repeatedly denounce the actions of the hate-mongering barbarians, and not mince words.
Calling this “political correctness” demonstrates the emptiness of the term “political correctness.” That term seems to be a way for one group to rationalize its giving offense to others.
Displaying an image of the Prophet Muhammad doesn’t compare to anything else. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it’s expressly forbidden by Islam to display any image of Muhammad. To violate this is to attack the very foundation of Islam itself. Islam is very much down on idolatry; Muhammad made a point of that. This prohibition is very much in step with his vision for the religion, so to thumb your nose at his request that he never be portrayed is to thumb your nose at the very foundation of Islam itself.
This doesn’t compare to flag burning or Piss Christ (even though flag burning and Piss Christ offend plenty of people as it is.) This is something that tells all the followers of a particular religion that there’s something very wrong with the very core of that which they and generations of ancestors have based their lives around. That doesn’t justify the violent reaction some Muslims have made, which was wrong for other reasons.
I think the European papers were foolish to provoke Islam. They made a point about free speech, and that’s all well and good. But was there really a need to insult all these people to do it? They should be allowed to draw pictures of Muhammad if they want; that shouldn’t be banned. But offending people just to show that you can offend people—what are they trying to prove? Same thing with Piss Christ and flag burning, for that matter—keep them legal, and hope that those who would make use of such powerful expressions of their civil rights might consider the value of not using a battering ram where a hammer will do.
And, of course, if my government ever moved to ban flag burning, Piss Christing or Muhammad drawing, I’d be the first one to break those laws, because then I’d have a reason to.
Is it really against Islamic law? Isn’t it merely one interpretation of Islamic law?
Contraception is also against Catholic canon, should we ban all adverts for contraception? Where do you draw the line?
There’s been a lot of variation throughout history and countries about exactly what can or cannot be shown. A great many hold that no images at all are allowed. Others allow “cartoonish” images, others images of animals but not people, some allow people. Some would even allow you to show the body of the Prophet. Even the most “liberal” stances I’ve encountered still draw the line at any depictions of the Prophet’s face, however. Anyone who would show the face would be in a small minority. When a Muslim production company made the movie The Message (aka Muhammed, Messenger of God), they didn’t even show his shadow – his presence was indicated by one of his personal items.
Another link: http://skender.be/supportdenmark/MohammedDrawings.jpg
Oh, and the fact that State Department spokesman Justin Higgins disapproves the publishing of the cartoons, makes it absolutely clear that condoning and finding excuses for Islam is a right-wing reaction.
As I said before: A xenophobic, homofobic, anti-semite, female-oppressing, violent and conservative religion like Islam, can never be associated with a modern, left-wing government.
[Dictionary, Left:The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing.]
So, The reaction of CNN wasn’t PC, but merely right-wing.
Also, doesn’t satire and offense go hand-in-hand? This isn’t about the persecution of a particular group but the freedom of expression of a much more vulnerable group.
That’s a better reason. I hadn’t thought of that one.
That, however, is outside the bounds of a news show in my opinion. CNN doesn’t need to pick a side in a propaganda war.
There’s no way this could be taken as idolatry, that’s for sure. 
If the Muslims are this offended by non-Muslims not following Muhammad’s commandments, they’ll have to learn to deal with it.
gum, I think you’re wrong for a number of reasons. Among them is the fact that Bill Clinton has also denounced the cartoons. The US government is in a no-win situation here, but I wish they’d chosen to keep their mouths closed.
Well, a bit of context here. The newspaper in question was “France Soir”, and the guy who fired the Managing Editor is not French. The owner of the paper is Egyptian, and he was the one who took the decision.
The next day, that paper had, in its first page, the headline: “Voltaire, au secours, ils sont devenus fous!” (Voltaire, help us, they have gone insane!) (Voltaire was the guy who said “I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it”).
(There are rumours that the Managing Editor of France Soir and the Egyptian owner did not see eye to eye and had been in conflict for quite some time, and that this was more a question of the owner finding a suitable excuse to fire him summarily. Time will tell, anyway).
There have been other newspapers in France who have published the cartoons. As well as publishing new ones, like the one in “Le Monde” today, by Plantu, which is a drawing of Mohammed made out of written text, the lines of which read: “Je ne dois pas dessiner Mahomet” (I must not draw Mohammed).
The French minister of interior, Sarkozy, has defended freedom of the press strongly in this case, saying essentially that it is non-negotiable. All in all, it seems that the French are not surrendering right now.
And the cartoons have been published in Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium, even Jordan (although the editor was fired immediatly and the newspaper was taken off the shops within hours), possibly New Zealand, and I have heard that in Mexico as well.
I am flabbergasted at the AMAZING STUPIDITY of the guys who stirred this hornests’ nest. The drawings were published in SEPTEMBER, for goodness sake! And it is all exploding now? There were some imams who lived in Denmark and took the drawings in a tour of the Middle East, along with some extra illustrations that were TRULY OFFENSIVE and NOT, repeat, NOT among the 12 published by the Jyllands-Posten.
And look at what they have obtained… The offending cartoons being published in many other countries, being available for millions upon millions of other readers to see… As well as inducing a wave of rather sick illustrations loose upon the internet which are INFINITELY worse than even the “worse” of the cartoons…
And that is not the worst thing 
I am honestly scared of what can come out of this in the middle-to-long term. Many people here in Europe are getting truly pissed off due to all this, and I am afraid of emotional overreactions to this emotional overreaction. I shall explain now.
The European extreme-right parties (French National Front and similar) are positively salivating when thinking of the next elections. All this mess is manna from heaven for them!!! They are sure to be using it for their campaigning, and I am afraid of their getting sizeable wins in the ballot box, because then we will all end up worse. Heck, the Dansk Folkeparti is already the third biggest in the Danish parliament… Can you imagine what will happen in the next elections there?!?
To the guys who started this unholy mess: Well done, FUCKERS! What the HELL were you thinking?!? Way to shoot yourself in the foot after getting it way down in your mouth!!!
Deity help us if certain groups end up getting influence in European governments due to this stupid spat. In that case, if those imams thought they were going to help their “Muslim Brothers” in Europe… oooooh boy, they ain’t seen nothing yet
Just my 2 eurocent
JoseB
Force of habit. 
There was quite an uproar by Christians over the recent Jerry Springer play, but I don’t recall any Moslems complaining about it, and Christ is one of their prophets too, isn’t he?
And I don’t recall any complaints from Moslems about cartoonists depicting God in the cartoons after the death of Pope John Paul II.
I think the western Moslems are hypocrites, but I can believe that those in areas where they don’t have a free press are ignorant (in the proper sense of the word).
Marley23, Bill Clinton is aiming for Kofi Annan’s job. What did you expect him to say?
Are you suggesting that the ways adherents of Islam and Christianity react to perceived affronts/assaults by members of other religions are equivalent?
That doesn’t hand-wave the comment away. It’s highly unlikely Clinton will ever be Secretary-General, and even if he was, it won’t be soon. The next S-G is going to be Asian; I’m not sure when it’ll be the Americas’ turn again. (And there’s never been a North American S-G, and… well, anyway). And if I know that, then Bill Clinton knows it.
It really is. It’s against Sharia law. What Muslim sect accepts images of Muhammad?
Who’s talking about banning anything? I’m not. That’s an issue for Vatican TV and newspapers, but not for democracies.
How about something honest as opposed to diplo-babble: Part of the price of living in a free society is having some of your core convictions insulted by others who don’t agree with you.